Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What was the resolution of this? Can we make relative -L work or do we > add error checks for relative -L paths?
We fixed the problem that was requiring Josh to use -L. I think -L is a
wizard's switch and need not be user-friendly, so I feel no need to do
either of the above.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
